Recently, the court held a lawyer severely liable for compensation for threatening YouTuber Ziyang to obtain unfair financial benefits and leak her personal information. Forgetting one's social status as a lawyer and using the privacy of others as a weapon to reduce advertising revenue and cause mental suffering has been defined as a serious crime that goes beyond simple financial extortion and destroys a person's social reputation. In particular, the court pointed out the risk that the sensitive information leaked by the defendant could lead to secondary harm, and did not recognize the disclosure of suspicions of tax evasion committed under the guise of reporting public interest as a legitimate act. This is significant in that the judiciary has put a firm brake on the malicious collusion between Cyber ​​Rekka and the forces behind it in the digital space.

Meanwhile, acts of public intimidation that mock public power are also going too far. The incident of sending false mail claiming that a homemade bomb was planted to the Gyeonggi Southern Police Agency raises questions about our society's system for preventing recidivism, given that it was committed by a person with a history of similar crimes in the past. Although the police's quick on-site inspection revealed that the risk was low and did not lead to a major accident, such false reports result in unnecessary waste of police power and incur significant social costs by maximizing citizens' anxiety. This repeated behavior, despite the fact that there is already a past history, such as the threat of drone terrorism, suggests that it is time to reexamine whether the punishment and follow-up management system under the current law is exerting a realistic deterrent.

The method of resolving personal complaints is also gradually deteriorating into a physical and threatening form. The trespassing and vandalism of the studio and the ongoing threats to his family that occurred during the exposure campaign against famous rapper Yang Hong-won are extreme examples that show how the past issue of school violence can evolve into a new form of crime. In addition, the case of a man in his 50s who was dissatisfied with the delivery driver's noise problem and threatened the store owner with a weapon also reveals our society's low conflict mediation capacity, which tries to resolve minor daily conflicts through violence rather than dialogue. An individual's anger invading the daily lives of others cannot be justified for any reason, and the reality that legal action is becoming the only solution is proof of the lack of communication in our society.

Death threats against public figures also became the center of controversy, coupled with the judiciary's decision to dismiss arrest warrants. A post by a man in his 30s that mentioned killing a specific politician with a gun is a clear criminal act that goes beyond freedom of expression, but the court decided to investigate without detention on the grounds that there was no risk of escape. This decision raises concerns that it could be read as a signal to citizens to lower their awareness of crime. The act of hiding behind online anonymity and revealing murderous intent towards others should not be dismissed as a temporary aberration. As the police are preparing to forward the case to prosecutors, they will have to show that terrorist threats against public figures cannot be taken lightly through strict law enforcement during the future investigation process.